User talk:Chris Capoccia: Difference between revisions

Hi Chris, I have been working on the Bioelectricity Wikipedia page with my colleagues and I really appreciate all the help that you have provided us in making the page more suitable for Wikipedia. We have put in citations in all the places that citations have been requested and also responded to the suggestion to merge with Biomagnetics (which we do not agree with and put our statement in the appropriate talk page a couple of weeks ago). I am wondering if you’d be willing to remove the two tags on the top of the page that indicate the need for the citations (which we have put in) and the suggestion for the merge (which we don’t agree with and no one else has added to the conversation)? I really appreciate your help with our efforts to make the field of Bioelectricity more available for the general public to learn about and to hopefully enrich and inspire lives through learning.

Best wishes and many thanks,

Tiadeeharrison (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2018 (EST)

Thanks Chris for all your great editing for wiki.

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Relational dialectics, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of inorganic compounds, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I’m seeing 295 of those links in mainspace:( DMacks (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link! sometimes you can figure out what article or chapter they should have cited and replace with a proper citation, but lots of times, it’s just hopeless and should be deleted   — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jurin’s law, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jean-Louis Vincent, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Permian–Triassic extinction event, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fracking, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving some cites in the Nile article. I’ll be working on that article for the next half year, trying to get it to GA and FA status. The cite fields are critical for FA, and I need them to be displayed within the markup as one line per template field like this:

{{cite EB1911  
|wstitle=Nile
|volume=19
|pages = 692–699 
|first1=William E.c
|last1=Garstin  
|first2= Frank R.
|last2= Cana
|author1-link=William Garstin
}}

The bot you used collapsed some of the templates to a single line, making it very difficult for me to manually edit the individual fields. I anticipate having hundreds of sources, and making many hundreds of edits to them. Would you mind refraining from running the tools on that article until late 2026? After it gets FA (I hope) you can do all you want to the article. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Capoccia: – Please stop making changes to the Nile article. I’m in the middle of working on it for GA and FA status. You keep making changes that are undoing my citation format conventions. Could you please reply here and let me know that you’re reading these comments? Noleander (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m even doing your exact same vertical format. i have no idea what you’re complaining about. you don’t own any article   — Chris Capoccia 💬 20:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The convention used in the article is to include ISSN for all journals; exclude BibCode (unless DOI is not available); omit hyphens from ISBNs; … among other things. Uniformity is required for GA status and especially for FA status. Your recent edits have deleted some ISSNs and introduced hyphens into some ISBNs. I appreciate that you’re trying to improve the encyclopedia, but I’ll be making 100’s of changes to the citations in the next few months. Would you please wait until I’m finished? Thanks. Noleander (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a list of the formatting conventions used in the Nile article in the article’s Talk page at Talk:Nile#For_reference:_conventions_used_in_this_article. Again, I appreciate the work you are doing, but I’m going to be nominating the article for GA status soon, and it will get rejected if the citations have non-uniform formatting (e.g. if some have ISSN, and some do not; or if some ISBNs have hyphens, and some do not; or some use DOI and others use BibCode; etc). Noleander (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly in your view is the point of having a link for the ISSN for a citation that has much more specific identifiers like DOI? Who actually wants to click on the ISSN and go to an index for the whole journal instead of a publisher page for that specifc article/chapter? Makes zero sense to me. Same for why on earth have a subscription only publisher URL that duplicates the DOI? Makes no sense, leads to link rot and blocks assistants like CitationBot from adding free full sources. Why have books cited to only the first author and lead to potential confusion over authors with lots of publications (Eggermont, Van Damme & Russell 2009) especially when the chapter name isn’t even correct? You go on about all these precise formatting rules, but in the “Integrated Nile” section, Said 1981 was cited as a whole entire book with no page number and formatted completely differently than the vertical format you swear by.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another change was made: the URL field was removed from several important sources. E.g. changed from

{{ cite book 
| title=The Nile: Origin, Environments, Limnology and Human Use
| editor-first=Henri
| editor-last=Dumont
| isbn=9781402097263
| series=Monographiae Biologicae
| year=2009
| publisher=Springer Netherlands
| access-date= 1 December 2025
| pages =  1-22
| chapter-url= https://archive.org/details/nileoriginenviro0000unse/page/1
| chapter = A Description of the Nile Basin, and a Synopsis of Its History,  Ecology, Biogeography, Hydrology, and Natural Resource s
| first= Henri
| last = Dumont
}}

To this:

 {{cite book
| last1 = Dumont
| first1 = Henri J.
| title = The Nile
| chapter = A Description of the Nile Basin, and a Synopsis of Its History,  Ecology, Biogeography, Hydrology, and Natural Resources
| series = Monographiae Biologicae
| date = 2009
| volume = 89
| pages = 1–21
| doi = 10.1007/978-1-4020-9726-3_1
|  isbn = 978-1-4020-9725-6
}}

The conventions in the article is that books in the sources section (a) have their title presented to the reader as a blue wikilink; and (b) if the book is in Internet Archive, use that as the URL (vs other potential sources such as Google or DOI). This is important for me as I prepare for GA/FA because I click on those links to take me to the IA version of the books: I have tools set up to let me read and search the books there.

Please refer to MOS:STYLERET which says: “Retaining existing styles: Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.[d] Edit warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is disruptive and is never acceptable.[c][e] Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. Seek opportunities for commonality to avoid disputes over style. If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article’s talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.”

and WP:CITEVAR which says ” Editors should not attempt to change an article’s established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change.[note 6] As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. “ Noleander (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the DOI, the publisher is giving away for free, the same 2 pages on archive. you’re losing nothing except the publisher is showing the two pages as a PDF with selectable text, so it’s better. thank you.   — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your thought on the bolded text in WP:CITEVAR above? I’m going to revert your changes. If you disagree, we can continue the conversation at WP:ANI. Noleander (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trans*, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans* until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you’ve significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Russia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Human, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]